Disabled employees and applicants often face intentional discrimination resulting from bias against their disabilities. Although Californians are largely familiar with the federal Americans with Disabilities…
The Berkeley Rent Ordinance consists of a rent control component, which protects tenants from drastic rent increases, and a just cause for eviction component, which…
The Oakland Rent Ordinance consists of a rent control component, which protects tenants from drastic rent increases, and a just cause for eviction component, which…
The San Francisco Rent Ordinance consists of a rent control component, which protects tenants from drastic rent increases, and a just cause for eviction component,…
With the constant housing crisis wreaking havoc on communities throughout the state, the California Legislature recently passed California Rent Control, which extends rent control and…
California’s Unemployment Insurance program is not just for individuals completely out of work. Even employed individuals can be “unemployed” for purposes of obtaining UI benefits. Obtaining UI…
If you separated from your employer, whether through termination or resignation, and have not received your final pay in accordance with the law, contact Astanehe Law for your consultation. Astanehe Law may be able to assist you in recovering your final pay and waiting time penalty.
Applying for unemployment benefits in California is easy and can be completed online. Alternatively, you can apply for unemployment benefits in California by telephone, mail, or…
In discretionary accounts, brokers have the power to transact with their client’s assets freely. Although brokers typically act responsibly, sometimes brokers abuse client confidence for personal…
You may be working with a bully if: You regularly feel victimized by and fear to work with a particular coworker. Common traits workplace bullies exhibit…
Disabled employees and applicants often face intentional discrimination resulting from bias against their disabilities. Although Californians are largely familiar with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), California law provides California employees greater workplace protections against disability discrimination and harassment. The Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits discrimination based on physical and mental disability by requiring employers to reasonably accommodate an applicant or employee’s known physical or mental disabilities. 2 Cal. Code Reg. § 11068(a). Ultimately, California law seeks to reduce barriers to employment disabled employees and applicants face aggressively.
California courts traditionally liberal interpretation of FEHA ensured many conditions constitute a disability. Assuredly, many Californians not considered disabled under the federal ADA are disabled under FEHA.
FEHA defines disability to include any condition that, when left untreated, limits the performance of one or more major life activities. Government Code § 12926. Under FEHA, working is a major life activity. Government Code § 12926.1(c). Disabilities include, but are not limited to, chronic or episodic conditions, deafness, blindness, learning disabilities, autism, schizophrenia, clinical depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD, OCD, missing limbs, mobility impairments, cerebral palsy, and heart disease.
Under FEHA, mployers have a duty to make reasonable accommodation for disabled employees or applicants with known disabilities. Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc., 53 Cal. App. 4th 935 (1997). Generally, reasonable accommodation is any workplace modification or adjustment that enables the disabled employee or applicant to perform essential job functions. Swanson v. Morongo Unif. School Dist., 232 Cal. App. 4th 954, 968-969 (2014). FEHA expressly states that a reasonable accommodation may include: (1) making the existing workplace accessible to and usable by disabled employees; and, (2) job restricting, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, modification of examination or training materials, and other similar accommodations. Government Code § 12926(p).
The employer need not grant every reasonable accommodation. Where the employer demonstrates, after engaging in the interactive process, that the requested accommodation imposes an undue hardship, it is excused from providing that accommodation. Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc., 53 Cal. App. 4th 935 (1997).
Where an employer seeks reassignment, the employer is obligated to reassign the employee to another existing and vacant position for which the employee is qualified. The employer need not create a new position to accommodate the disabled employee. Swanson v. Morongo Unif. School District, 232 Cal. App. 4th 954, 970 (2014). Where a vacant position exists, the disabled employee seeking reassignment is entitled to preferential consideration. Id.
Often, disabled employees seek reassignment where they are unable to perform an essential job function of their current position. Atkins v. City of Los Angeles, 8 Cal. App. 5th 696 (2017). This saves the employee’s employment as the employer is obligated to reassign the disabled employee, to the extent vacant positions exist.
Where an employee is disabled, the employer and employee must engage in the interactive process and determine whether the employer can provide the disabled employee accommodation enabling the disabled employee to perform essential job functions. FEHA requires the employer to do everything in its power to find a viable reasonable accommodation. Notably, the employer need not provide the specific accommodation requested by the employer but must provide a reasonable accommodation.
To prevail on a disability discrimination claim, the disabled employee or applicant must prove: (1) They have a disability under FEHA; (2) They are qualified to perform the position or desired position’s essential functions; and, (3) The employer failed to reasonably accommodate their disability. Scotch v. Art Institute of California, 173 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1010 (2009); Nadaf-Rahrov v. The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 952, 977-980 (2008).
Where the employer fails to engage in a negotiation, the disabled employee also has a cause of action for the employer’s failure to participate in the interactive process.
The fact that an employer may have taken some initial steps to work with or negotiate with the disabled employee to identify reasonable accommodations does not absolve the employer of liability for later failing to engage in the interactive process or for failing to accommodate. InSpitzer v. Good Guys, Inc., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1376 (2000), the employer knew an initial accommodation was ineffective and, despite initially engaging in the interactive process, could be liable for failing to provide additional accommodations.
Ultimately, liability hinges on the objective circumstances and facts related to the communications failure and dispute.
Reasonable accommodation examples include:
FEHA requires California employers to accommodate an employee or applicant’s known physical or mental disabilities, except where one of the following exceptions applies:
Disabled employees and applicants who experience discrimination and harassment can recover money damages. Further, disabled employees and applicants can recover back pay, front pay or reinstatement, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and their attorney fees in a disability discrimination action against their former, current, or potential employer.
If you are the victim of FEHA disability discrimination, contact Astanehe Law for your legal information call. Astanehe Law has experience in protecting California employees from employment discrimination and will help you obtain justice. Call us at (415) 226-7170 or email us at contact@astanehelaw.com.